Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1401 of 2019 1 - Smt. Svati Thakur W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years D/o Shri Ashok Singh Thakur, Through Shiv Kumar Thakur, R/o Thakurpara Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Mauli Thakur D/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur Aged About 11 Years Minors, Hence Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Svati Thakur, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur, D/o Shri Ashok Singh Thakur, R/o Thakurpara, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3 - Ku. Kritika Thakur D/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur Aged About 7 Years Minors, Hence Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Svati Thakur, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur, D/o Shri Ashok Singh Thakur, R/o Thakurpara, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus Suresh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Thakur Aged About 37 Years Employee Of Railway R/o House No. 75, Usha Upvan, Village Lokhandi, Next To Mangla Housing Colony Tahsil Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) Along with CRR No. 154 of 2020 Suresh Singh Thakur S/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad Thakur Aged About 37 Years Resident Of House No. 75, Usha Upvan, Village Lokhandi, Next To Mangla Housing Colony, Tahsil Sakri, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Versus 1 - Smt. Svati Thakur W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years D/o Sh. Ashok Singh Thakur, Through Sh. Shiv Kumar Thakur, Resident Of Thakurpara Takhatpur, Distict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Mouli Thakur D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Thakur Aged About 11 Years Minor, Hence Through Her Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Svati Thakur W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur, D/o Sh. Ashok Singh Thakur, Resident Of Thakurpara Takhatpur, Distict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Kritika Thakur D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Thakur Aged About 7 Years Minor, Hence Through Her Natural Guardian And Mother, Smt. Svati Thakur W/o Shri Suresh Singh Thakur, D/o Sh. Ashok Singh Thakur, Resident Of Thakurpara Takhatpur, Distict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) In CRR No.1401/2019 For Applicant : None, For Non-applicant : Mr. Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate In CRR No.154/2020 For Applicant : Mr. Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 / 07 /20 25 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the wife and daughters to press this revision on repeated calls. 2. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 3. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Svati Thakur and daughters Ku. Mauli 3 Thakur and Ku. Kritika Thakur. The learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur vide order dated 13.09.2029, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total ₹15,000/- to the wife, Smt. Svati Thakur and daughters Ku. Mauli Thakur and Ku. Kritika Thakur. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Svati Thakur and daughters Ku. Mauli Thakur and Ku. Kritika Thakur, filed Criminal Revision No. 1401/2019, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Suresh Singh Thakur, filed Criminal Revision No. 154/2020, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/ set-aside. 4. Mr. Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for husband Suresh Singh Thakur, would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is ready and willing to keep his wife with him, but she left the matrimonial house and living separately, without there being any reasonable cause. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife has not adduced any evidence in respect of income of the husband. The learned Family Court has awarded disproportionate maintenance in favour of the wife. He further submits that his wife is doing stitching and tailoring work and from where she received sufÏcient amount and she is able to maintain herself. He also submits that the wife is an uncontrolled mind lady 4 and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set- aside/reduced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the husband and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 13.09.2019, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and daughters. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Svati Thakur and daughters Ku. Mauli Thakur and Ku. Kritika Thakur, filed Criminal Revision No. 1401/2019, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Suresh Singh Thakur, filed Criminal Revision No. 154/2020, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/ set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the 5 maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Rahul Dewangan